Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I am one that disagrees with the "unconscious" development of life theory. I think the mindboggling complexity of DNA and complex life processes are not likely to have happened by an unconscious process. Furthermore, I believe there are higher planes of nature than the physical plane and there exists things like nature spirits that foster things,

I can agree with you until your last point about nature spirits that foster things. It makes far more sense to me that God is responsible for the ultimate formation of life. How He did it is beyond me, but He says He gave life plus more such as enable the sun and moon to ensure life as we know it on the Earth. Thank you for your reply.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are a great many people who believe in "theistic evolution", namely God-guided evolution. Thus, not all is chance with that viewpoint. Matter of fact, the surveys I've seen have that as being what the majority of Christian theologians believe.

That is likely because -- the theory is logical. But again I have my doubts about it but cannot say I understand everything. And to put God in the picture of theistic evolution right now is questionable. Because -- one would have to ask in genuine reasonableness, which God would that be? And that is where we might part right now. Yet I respect your viewpoint. (There are other issues besides that of the verifiability of the deemed process of evolution. But again -- thank you. And likely it is here that we can rest our cases. You might win in court, however.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He never discussed consciousness nor its role in the preservation of life.

Why would he? It isn't necessary to formulate a theory of evolution. You've never even tried to demonstrate any validity to your many claims including this one. I am well aware that, given what you've shown, you can't. But you don't even try.

He did not discuss individuals or even believe that all individuals are conscious.

Not relevant or necessary.

He did not discuss individuals except highly tangentially as member of species.

Big nothing. So what.

Despite the fact that all life and all ideas are individual he knew that individual consciousness played no role in preservation of nor change in life or species!

Why would he consider what there is no evidence to consider.

Darwin's opinion that consciousness is irrelevant is not one I share.

And yours in an opinion only you share.

 

[George-ananda]

I can agree with you until your last point about nature spirits that foster things. It makes far more sense to me that God is responsible for the ultimate formation of life. How He did it is beyond me, but He says He gave life plus more such as enable the sun and moon to ensure life as we know it on the Earth. Thank you for your reply.

I see nature spirits and us as all having their source as God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the opinion of many people who support Evolution science doesn't even work by experiment.

This doesn't make any sense. There is lots of experimental evidence supporting the theory. I'm betting that you don't know of it and what you may you probably don't understand.

Pure genius is believed to drive science.

I don't agree. No one has demonstrated this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is this your opinion or the opinion of peers?

If it is the opinion of peers then professional opinion has, I believe, changed.

What I find interesting is that any attempt to engage you ends up with you ignoring anything anyone else says, followed by you making profuse wild and unsupported claims.

I don't get how someone can think doing that is an argument or showing us all something.

It is the strangest thing I've ever seen.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's hardly surprising that after Darwin et al dismissed a definition for or even the existence of consciousness that they then concluded that consciousness has no bearing on change in species, life, abiogenesis, and the creation of life.

Without realizing it they have created a reality based on the perspective of our species, language, reductionism, and inertness. This created reality might bear very little relationship to the reality we each strive to see.

Hello. I can't say I understand everything you write above, but the subject of consciousness is interesting to me. I don't imagine that bees are conscious in the same way that humans are, but I haven't spoken to a bee yet about this. On the other hand, humans of the same sort (meaning homo sapiens) have different languages and for some it is easier for some to learn another language than others. And for others it is hard for them to learn even their native tongue. Yes, I believe this involves consciousness, but I do not believe this all came about on its own. By that I mean I do not believe consciousness of any sort came about by the process per Darwin via evolution. Nice talking with you. Hope you understand. (a little joke there...) Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see nature spirits and us as all having their source as God.

ok, not sure if that's what you learned from another source (meaning whatever religion you might have studied) or you thought of this on your own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the opinion of many people who support Evolution science doesn't even work by experiment.

Pure genius is believed to drive science.

No, that's just your twisted strawman opinion.

 

[cladking]

I don't imagine that bees are conscious in the same way that humans are, but I haven't spoken to a bee yet about this. On the other hand, humans of the same sort (meaning homo sapiens) have different languages and for some it is easier for some to learn another language than others. And for others it is hard for them to learn even their native tongue. Yes, I believe this involves consciousness, but I do not believe this all came about on its own. By that I mean I do not believe consciousness of any sort came about by the process per Darwin via evolution. Nice talking with you. Hope you understand. (a little joke there...) Take care.

The ability to learn languages is composed of many characteristics. A major deficit in any one of them might cause an individual to have a tough time learning a new language. And since we are a product of what we believe the belief we can't learn or needn't learn is also sufficient.

Human consciousness is virtually a misnomer. We are not so much conscious of what goes on around us like a bee is but conscious of what goes on in our own head. A bee doesn't even know it is thinking because its being reflects the world around and the world around it reflects its consciousness. We aren't one with reality but one with our beliefs. So we act like sleepwalkers living out a dream we acquired with language and beliefs.

I'm sure I don't know how consciousness came about. I suppose it's hardly impossible it arose in steps and stages like believers in abiogenesis imagine but I have a little difficulty imagining how early life could live at all if it didn't want to. Why would some chemical care if it consumed or was consumed? It's certainly possible that just random chance got life established until consciousness arose as Darwin imagines all life still exists. It's entirely possible that from our perspective and the perspective of all consciousness it will forever be impossible to see the hand of a Creator. Or conversely perhaps science will in fact learn that reality and or consciousness were a creation.

Humans mistake language and thought for intelligence and reality. We mistake things written in (text) books as gospel and peers as Gods.

 

[cladking]

No, that's just your twisted strawman opinion.

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before. Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ability to learn languages is composed of many characteristics. A major deficit in any one of them might cause an individual to have a tough time learning a new language. And since we are a product of what we believe the belief we can't learn or needn't learn is also sufficient.

You seem to consider yourself an expert in all things including language, what do you consider these characteristics are?

Human consciousness is virtually a misnomer. We are not so much conscious of what goes on around us like a bee is but conscious of what goes on in our own head. A bee doesn't even know it is thinking because its being reflects the world around and the world around it reflects its consciousness. We aren't one with reality but one with our beliefs. So we act like sleepwalkers living out a dream we acquired with language and beliefs.

Possessing all knowledge of consciousness as you seem to imply, please expand on this with the details you consider significant. I would love to see the important experimental evidence you use to come to these conclusions.

I'm sure I don't know how consciousness came about.

I agree.

I suppose it's hardly impossible it arose in steps and stages like believers in abiogenesis imagine

What is a believer in abiogenesis and how is it that you conclude abiogenesis and evolution are the same process? These are not considered the same in science.

What do you consider is a "believer" in something? Is it merely someone that requests you to support your claims and doesn't accept wild claims simply because they've been stated?

but I have a little difficulty imagining how early life could live at all if it didn't want to.

I have great difficulty understanding the meaning of this. Can you explain it to those of us that do not feel we are omniscient and possess all knowledge?

Why would some chemical care if it consumed or was consumed?

Are you saying that chemicals don't have consciousness?

It's certainly possible that just random chance got life established until consciousness arose as Darwin imagines all life still exists.

Are you suggesting that consciousness arose during the evolution of life and not all life possessed consciousness all the time? Isn't that contradicting your claims of "life is consciousness"? Can you help me become unconfused about the many seeming contradictions that you regularly declare as if they were all facts? How can these contradictory conditions exist all at the same time?

It's entirely possible that from our perspective and the perspective of all consciousness it will forever be impossible to see the hand of a Creator. Or conversely perhaps science will in fact learn that reality and or consciousness were a creation.

Can you explain why you mix religion into this when the discussion is about the observable process of evolution?

Humans mistake language and thought for intelligence and reality.

What do you think they are if they are not reflective of intelligence? Do believe that we are some sort of receiver getting messages from some unseen source? What do you think that source might be? What is intelligence?

We mistake things written in (text) books as gospel and peers as Gods.

Can you show how you have gained all this knowledge without sources? Can you explain your previous claim of using Google to find information in light of what you say here? How do you reconcile this contradiction?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before.

Is it possible that it is addressing a straw man and that it is correct?

Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks

Where have you pointed to this evidence?

Does the similarity with one aspect of artificial selection constitute enough reason to rename an entire concept to include things that are not part of the concept?

Can you show even one observation where speciation took place at a bottleneck?

you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

People keep saying that because there is evidence from observation and evidence from experiment that demonstrates that. You have been provided many examples of that evidence. Your best rejection was to ignore it. At best you came up with cheap agar out of China as your evidence to refute it. That was very amusing considering how you deliver your claims as fact without support.

Do you think that you actually provide evidence? Or do you think that everyone should just consider what you say is fact without bothering to evaluate it on their own, ask questions, request evidence or rational support of those claims?

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

Do you believe that people that continually request explanations, evidence and support for claims are in fact ignoring what you say?

Do you think it is wrong to ask someone to provide a rational argument in support of what they claim?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ability to learn languages is composed of many characteristics. A major deficit in any one of them might cause an individual to have a tough time learning a new language. And since we are a product of what we believe the belief we can't learn or needn't learn is also sufficient.

Human consciousness is virtually a misnomer. We are not so much conscious of what goes on around us like a bee is but conscious of what goes on in our own head. A bee doesn't even know it is thinking because its being reflects the world around and the world around it reflects its consciousness. We aren't one with reality but one with our beliefs. So we act like sleepwalkers living out a dream we acquired with language and beliefs.

I'm sure I don't know how consciousness came about. I suppose it's hardly impossible it arose in steps and stages like believers in abiogenesis imagine but I have a little difficulty imagining how early life could live at all if it didn't want to. Why would some chemical care if it consumed or was consumed? It's certainly possible that just random chance got life established until consciousness arose as Darwin imagines all life still exists. It's entirely possible that from our perspective and the perspective of all consciousness it will forever be impossible to see the hand of a Creator. Or conversely perhaps science will in fact learn that reality and or consciousness were a creation.

Humans mistake language and thought for intelligence and reality. We mistake things written in (text) books as gospel and peers as Gods.

If you are thinking and using language on this forum and you don't consider that intelligence, then why do you bother to do that?

By your own words, that wouldn't be intelligent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before. Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

I don't think people are ignoring you. I'm not ignoring you.

I have to weigh that against the fact that you have not responded to many of my posts. When you do respond you select only a tiny piece of what I wrote and address it out of context.

You admit to using the ignore feature for people that ask you to explain yourself and provide reasons to have a debate and discussion with you.

That seems to fit the definition of ignore for you more than it does for the people you claim it for.

How do you explain that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before. Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

What do you consider an argument to consist of?

Do you think that claiming something as if it were a fact and then ignoring any input from other regarding that claim to be an argument?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before. Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

Are you ignoring me?

How can you ignore what others have to say and then use that same tool on others?

I'm fascinated by all the contradictions. I would love to know how that all works.

 

[cladking]

I have great difficulty understanding the meaning of this. Can you explain it to those of us that do not feel we are omniscient and possess all knowledge?

Individuals have consciousness. If you remember the many times I defined "consciousness" one of its characteristics is free will and "free will" is in part the desire to live rather than to become a meal or to die. Consciousness not only keeps every individual alive but also provides the desire to stay that way.

Are you saying that chemicals don't have consciousness?

Correct. In my opinion.

Are you suggesting that consciousness arose during the evolution of life and not all life possessed consciousness all the time? Isn't that contradicting your claims of "life is consciousness"? Can you help me become unconfused about the many seeming contradictions that you regularly declare as if they were all facts? How can these contradictory conditions exist all at the same time?

I specifically stated I don't know and you agreed.

Can you explain why you mix religion into this when the discussion is about the observable process of evolution?

I don't believe that the nature of reality is a religious idea.

You admit to using the ignore feature for people that ask you to explain yourself and provide reasons to have a debate and discussion with you.

NO!!!

I have given up on communicating with a few individuals who refuse to parse the word "metaphysics" when I use it as "basis of science". I'm well aware people won't parse words as they are intended no matter what but when someone admits repeatedly to refuse to do it then there is no point trying to communicate at all on any subject at all.

What do you consider an argument to consist of?

Facts, logic, and experiment.

Are you ignoring me?

No. I'm avoiding the repetition of things I've addressed numerous times before.

SUCH AS when I use the word "metaphysics" I usually intend it to mean "the basis of science" though I reserve the human right to intend other definitions if and when I SEE FIT.

 

[cladking]

What do you consider an argument to consist of?

For example what you quoted IS an argument;

"Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest."

I've fleshed out this argument many times and it was ignored or handwaved. So a sentence will have to suffice this time.

 

[gnostic]

Rather than actually address arguments you repeat an assertion you've made many times before. Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest.

And you will ignore this argument AGAIN.

I don't think people are ignoring you. I'm not ignoring you.

I have to weigh that against the fact that you have not responded to many of my posts. When you do respond you select only a tiny piece of what I wrote and address it out of context.

You admit to using the ignore feature for people that ask you to explain yourself and provide reasons to have a debate and discussion with you.

That seems to fit the definition of ignore for you more than it does for the people you claim it for.

How do you explain that?

I am in cladking’s ignore list, because I repeatedly disagree with his views on “Metaphysics”.

His explanation for metaphysics is, “Metaphysics is the basis of science”.

That’s not an explanation. It isn’t even a definition for Metaphysics.

It’s a sorry excuse to put anyone on the ignore list.